4th order build continued (M5)

[pimpedout97x 4]

i love PA mids and bullet tweeters in cars. they sound great.

[Sencheezy 689]

i love PA mids and bullet tweeters in cars. they sound great.

They have asked multiply times, don't add anything in if it is only emotions

If you don't have anything to say that has any value besides your own, you shouldn't say it in this thread...

[topgun 262]

Keep this one on track guys. If you don't have anything to add to the thread, stay out.

[Alan Palmer 3]

i love PA mids and bullet tweeters in cars. they sound great.

come on vj.. leave well enough alone.

m5, i've kind of stated my view on the reasoning behind the designers choice, but maybe it wasn't fully clear.

robin is responsible for the current middleweight world champion. it's a malibu. making malibus loud is nothing new for this man. just like i have information on jeep patriots and nissan maximas that you probably dont when it comes to natural response curves inside the vehicle. shoot... theres a certain vehicle that has anywhere from a .3 to 1.7db gain when you open the glove box. just one of those things. specific experience changes the game.

now, as for the physics, i'm not going to lie, or bs my way through it. i do not have a degree in physics, nor do i have a very firm understanding. however, i can utilize references from actual physicists that have emphatically stated that car audio as a whole constantly defys the natural laws of physics. i couldnt tell you why, how, or which ones, only that they do.

i believe we both have a pretty firm understanding of where both sides are coming from now though.. robin and dylan designed based off of their experience with box building and spl, and used the parameters given to finalize their decision, whereas you took the parameters, and used them first.

what it really comes down to, and the reason i would get involved in the first place.. PLEASE do not doubt these design/builders.. they are not perfect, but they are respected. they have proven themselves with true results, and happy customers. im sure they would be more than happy to chat about it more if you got in touch with them privately.

[Impious 1,476]

I'll give it a shot

robin is responsible for the current middleweight world champion. it's a malibu. making malibus loud is nothing new for this man. just like i have information on jeep patriots and nissan maximas that you probably dont when it comes to natural response curves inside the vehicle. shoot... theres a certain vehicle that has anywhere from a .3 to 1.7db gain when you open the glove box. just one of those things. specific experience changes the game.

It changes the game....somewhat, depending on what game is being played.

If one were designing an enclosure to maximize SPL at a specific frequency or frequency region then yes, some of those details are important as the end result is ultimately determined by the highest number on the meter. To do that you are best served by knowing as many of the little nuances of the vehicle as you can. Some of them will help determine the enclosure design, others will not. For example, would you design the enclosure differently if having the glove box open increases the SPL measured at a specific location at a specific frequency by .5db? Probably not. The enclosure design would majorly be the same, you would just make sure to have the glove box open during competition and metering. So that's irrelevant to the discussion of enclosure design. Would it be helpful to know something like the peak frequency of the vehicle with the enclosure in place? Sure, if strictly achieving the highest peak SPL were the goal, as that would help determine appropriate tuning for that specific situation.

On the other hand, not all of those little nuances make a difference in the region of performance M5 is referring to. I'm not going to go back and scour the other thread, I believe Malibu stated his goals were not numbers driven but rather a loud system with music and let the numbers fall where they may. In which case, will knowing that there is a .5db peak with the glove box open going to make a difference? No, it's not. It's not audible. It's irrelevant, in this particular aspect of the discussion. Even a 1.5db difference (for example) is pretty much irrelevant when discussing audible performance characteristics....which according to Malibu was the goal, and hence the goal the system would have been designed around. Is knowing the peak frequency of the cabin going to matter to the enclosure design? Maybe a minor part, but since we are more worried about the overall shape of the response rather than performance at a single specific frequency or narrow range of frequencies and we're not worried about the peak SPL there are going to be significantly more contributing factors than simply the peak frequency of the vehicle.

So while Robin having experience with the Malibu I'm sure is beneficial in a system like Cricket's where achieving specific SPL targets is the goal, not all of that information is entirely relevant or driving factors to a system designed explicitly for playing music. For example (one example), does Robin have exact and highly detailed information about the complete transfer function of the vehicle with that specific wall installed? If not, then he's probably guesstimating just as much as M5.

In short; just having information isn't as relevant as knowing what that information is and how applicable that knowledge is to the specific scenario. So the question is, what specific knowledge does Robin have that gives him special insight into the in-vehicle response of that (or any) particular enclosure in the Malibu. How "special" is that knowledge or the response of a Malibu that makes M5's (or anyone else with a fairly in-depth understanding of acoustics) assumptions completely invalid in the realm that we are discussing (which is not peak SPL at a single frequency or narrow bandwidth)?

car audio as a whole constantly defys the natural laws of physics.

And I can emphatically state that this is false and with only a laypersons understanding of physics.

With enough information and a properly constructed model, it would be entirely possible to fairly accurately predict the in-vehicle performance of any enclosure (or speaker) in any vehicle. Any arrangement, any alignment, any speakers, any power level, etc. It would be able to be predicted with enough accurate information and an accurate model.

The problem is, this would be extremely difficult (but not entirely impossible). And that's the the moral of the story. It's the technical difficultly, not the lack of ability, that prohibits someone from doing it. If it were due to a lack of ability then it would be properly classified as supernatural and defying the natural laws of physics. But it's not, it's the difficulty in such a task that makes it prohibitive. Additionally, without enough information, a proper model or a proper understanding of all of the physics involved it's also sometimes difficult to pinpoint a specific reason of why a specific result is achieved. It's a lack of knowledge, not a lack of the physics to be able to describe such an event. It's an issue of comprehension of the event, not a lack of capability for physics to describe the event.

In short; Physics can describe it. It's not miraculous, supernatural or outside of the realm of physics. There may be limits to available information, appropriate models or any one individual's understanding.....but because someone can't immediately describe an event with physics it doesn't mean that it falls outside of the realm of physics and can be classified as supernatural.

[Impious 1,476]

The car is not a one note wonder as you so intensely repeated before. And your telling others that what you say is gold... You keep yelling Physics cant be beat... if thats true why doesn't everyone run sealed enclosures?? In theory they are the best hands down... But are hardly used.

Sorry, I know this isn't "on topic" but couldn't let it go.

There is absolutely nothing in any theory that states or indicates sealed enclosures are "the best hands down". There is no theory which indicates sealed enclosures are always the best option, that they are better in every regard than any other enclosure type, or that they are the best enclosure regardless of goals or circumstances.

[KickinAudio 5]

///M5,

For credibility sake and those that aren't familiar with you, what are your accomplishments in car audio?

Are you a shop owner? Have you built notable SPL and/or SQ competition builds?

[///M5 2,833]

Impious already answered nearly everything you asked Alan, but there is one other thing to clarify.

now, as for the physics, i'm not going to lie, or bs my way through it. i do not have a degree in physics, nor do i have a very firm understanding. however, i can utilize references from actual physicists that have emphatically stated that car audio as a whole constantly defys the natural laws of physics. i couldnt tell you why, how, or which ones, only that they do.

It does not defy Physics not even close. Guess how GM designed that car? That's right, by modeling it in the virtual world. They then verified their model using modal analysis and transfer path analysis to determine if the acoustic model that they had created was satisfactory and did what they had designed it to. This includes the full acoustic response of not only the stereo but the car interacting with the world as well. Obviously with any model some assumptions are made, but the trick is to manage the variables such that the outcome is appropriate. If it didn't defy Physics for GM then I am pretty sure it didn't for the box design in question.

///M5,

For credibility sake and those that aren't familiar with you, what are your accomplishments in car audio?

Are you a shop owner? Have you built notable SPL and/or SQ competition builds?

How would that add credibility? Are you implying you'll believe some idiot who spouts incorrect BS because he has a history that includes winning something? How about the opposite, what if I said I've never installed a car stereo but I did all the model verification for GM on their car. Obviously you are a bit short cited in your whole thought on this process if you truly think it has to be limited to car audio, or to even think that is what is necessary to be relevant.

Either way, credibility on the internet should never come from citing your experiences but instead expressing them and backing them up with logic and thought which is exactly why I thought Big Boi made this thread as someone wanted to share that. I find it disgusting when people want to live on their reputation but don't actually bring any game to the table, hopefully that isn't happening here or being implied that it is a good thing. As for your point, it is a good one though as so far the credibility of the ultra-defensive Malibu'ers happens to be completely subjective. Subjective & emotional responses do not paint a pretty picture.

To get this back on topic and answer what you should have been asking, there are some rather simple things here to understand: Box design, which isn't particularly hard and the understanding of transfer functions which is more difficult, but just rudimentary Physics and not rocket science. If you think there is some magic voodoo or something else as well, then lets hear it.

[flastrongman 8]

Well since m5 was so utterly offended by casey's request for proof of credibility, how about something a little less invasive of his fragile ego. After all we don't want anyone getting emotional in this thread.

M5, would you be so gracious as to humor us with a graph of how this enclosure/sub/vehicle will perform.

single reflex bandpass for a single BTL 18"(old triple stack version)

sealed- 3.5cu ft ported 7.5cu ft@50hz w/ 120sq in of port

vehicle- 1999 land cruiser

[Alan Palmer 3]

first things first, on the topic of sealed boxes, physics state that a sealed box will have the best performance, as the back waves will not interfer with the forward waves at all. excursion leading to air agitation is what creates sound. in a perfect world, a sealed box would in fact be the loudest. i can find the article written by a physicist with years of research, or you can form your interpretation based of my crude description. either way, you were somewhat incorrect. physics does in fact state sealed boxes would model best.

Impious already answered nearly everything you asked Alan, but there is one other thing to clarify.

now, as for the physics, i'm not going to lie, or bs my way through it. i do not have a degree in physics, nor do i have a very firm understanding. however, i can utilize references from actual physicists that have emphatically stated that car audio as a whole constantly defys the natural laws of physics. i couldnt tell you why, how, or which ones, only that they do.

It does not defy Physics not even close. Guess how GM designed that car? That's right, by modeling it in the virtual world. They then verified their model using modal analysis and transfer path analysis to determine if the acoustic model that they had created was satisfactory and did what they had designed it to. This includes the full acoustic response of not only the stereo but the car interacting with the world as well. Obviously with any model some assumptions are made, but the trick is to manage the variables such that the outcome is appropriate. If it didn't defy Physics for GM then I am pretty sure it didn't for the box design in question.

///M5,

For credibility sake and those that aren't familiar with you, what are your accomplishments in car audio?

Are you a shop owner? Have you built notable SPL and/or SQ competition builds?

How would that add credibility? Are you implying you'll believe some idiot who spouts incorrect BS because he has a history that includes winning something? How about the opposite, what if I said I've never installed a car stereo but I did all the model verification for GM on their car. Obviously you are a bit short cited in your whole thought on this process if you truly think it has to be limited to car audio, or to even think that is what is necessary to be relevant.

Either way, credibility on the internet should never come from citing your experiences but instead expressing them and backing them up with logic and thought which is exactly why I thought Big Boi made this thread as someone wanted to share that. I find it disgusting when people want to live on their reputation but don't actually bring any game to the table, hopefully that isn't happening here or being implied that it is a good thing. As for your point, it is a good one though as so far the credibility of the ultra-defensive Malibu'ers happens to be completely subjective. Subjective & emotional responses do not paint a pretty picture.

To get this back on topic and answer what you should have been asking, there are some rather simple things here to understand: Box design, which isn't particularly hard and the understanding of transfer functions which is more difficult, but just rudimentary Physics and not rocket science. If you think there is some magic voodoo or something else as well, then lets hear it.

to be honest, a reputation is something to bring to the table. if you have proven that your method works, then you have something entirely credible. its like a pitcher that throws a backwards curveball. its against the norm, but if he throws a couple of perfect games, does he not have something to bring to the table since its not the norm?

logically, you can't refute something being loud if they hold the world title, correct? logically, if a car with 4 15"s can do a 155+ from 26hrtz-56 hrtz, its one helluva car, and was an extremely successful design and build.

now i can quote physics, math, grammar, etc alllllll day. that does not make me an expert. most of the programs available to graph responses using the ts parameters do not do that great of a job to be honest. i've built tons of boxes that graph amazingly, and then turn out to sound like crap and not get loud at all... my current wall graphs pretty terribly, but judging by my windsheild, and all the people that have covered their ears when the bass hits, its not half bad.

i just dont see how you could trust a computer program over someone that has proven themselves in the industry. i mean.. if larry frederick tells you something works, are you going to tell him its impossible? robin is to the spl world what larry is to the sq world.

when it comes down to it, i believe you when you say it wont model well, and physics says it cant. you have to believe me when i say it can. unless the designers/builders, or one of malibooms friends decides to post frequency by frequency numbers, or you take a trip to hear it in person, thats the best i can offer.

[///M5 2,833]

Well since m5 was so utterly offended by casey's request for proof of credibility, how about something a little less invasive of his fragile ego. After all we don't want anyone getting emotional in this thread.

M5, would you be so gracious as to humor us with a graph of how this enclosure/sub/vehicle will perform.

single reflex bandpass for a single BTL 18"(old triple stack version)

sealed- 3.5cu ft ported 7.5cu ft@50hz w/ 120sq in of port

vehicle- 1999 land cruiser

Lol, nice try.

first things first, on the topic of sealed boxes, physics state that a sealed box will have the best performance, as the back waves will not interfer with the forward waves at all. excursion leading to air agitation is what creates sound. in a perfect world, a sealed box would in fact be the loudest. i can find the article written by a physicist with years of research, or you can form your interpretation based of my crude description. either way, you were somewhat incorrect. physics does in fact state sealed boxes would model best.

Best? Best for what...and perfect world? Come on, stop making up stuff. Not at all a correct interpretation.

to be honest, a reputation is something to bring to the table. if you have proven that your method works, then you have something entirely credible. its like a pitcher that throws a backwards curveball. its against the norm, but if he throws a couple of perfect games, does he not have something to bring to the table since its not the norm?

Not an applicable argument. You are stating something that defies math, show me where my assumptions are wrong.

now i can quote physics, math, grammar, etc alllllll day. that does not make me an expert. most of the programs available to graph responses using the ts parameters do not do that great of a job to be honest. i've built tons of boxes that graph amazingly, and then turn out to sound like crap and not get loud at all... my current wall graphs pretty terribly, but judging by my windsheild, and all the people that have covered their ears when the bass hits, its not half bad.

i just dont see how you could trust a computer program over someone that has proven themselves in the industry. i mean.. if larry frederick tells you something works, are you going to tell him its impossible? robin is to the spl world what larry is to the sq world.

when it comes down to it, i believe you when you say it wont model well, and physics says it cant. you have to believe me when i say it can. unless the designers/builders, or one of malibooms friends decides to post frequency by frequency numbers, or you take a trip to hear it in person, thats the best i can offer.

Try understanding it instead of quoting it, this whole discussion would be easier.

No one said to trust a computer program, but math and science. I don't care if you do it by hand as long as you take into account the true variables modeling will not lie. This is beyond this discussion though and not pertinent. This thread was made to continue a discussion on why a certain box that someone pushed someone to design and build wasn't the best solution for his goals. It wasn't said that it wouldn't be loud, that it wouldn't work at all, but that there was a better way to do it. It sure seems to me that isn't what you want to talk about now which surely leads me to conclusions that I hope one of you hops on and proves wrong.

[TechSys 3]

The credibility question establishes your qualifications on this, and just about all other car audio related topics. You should come up with reasons why you are someone to listen to on this topic. Why do you have special knowledge or understanding of this topic? What can the audience learn from you that they couldn't learn from someone else?

Credibility can refer to your extensive research on this topic, your life-long interest in this issue, your personal experience with car audio, or your desire to better the lives of forum members by sifting through the topic and providing the crucial information.

Once you establish your credibility, members more likely to listen to you as something of an expert and to consider what you say to be realistic and the right way.

[Alan Palmer 3]

heres the article m5.

If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure.

Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try.

So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion.

link- http://caraudiomag.com/articles/box-basics-part-2

[Alan Palmer 3]

and at this point, credibility is all that matters. you continue to say science and math, but neither of those are changing the results... the results have real life, 100%, factual proved you wrong. if you have followed all applications of math and science perfectly (which i know you havent, because there is more to this scenario than you have access to), then yes, it has in fact proven math and science wrong. outside of that... i dont think i have much else to say here.

[///M5 2,833]

heres the article m5.

link- http://caraudiomag.com/articles/box-basics-part-2

I'll read that later, but you should as well as it definitely won't be proving that math isn't valid.

[///M5 2,833]

Actually I'll leave it open and give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually post something useful for discussion. If this goes into an emotional multi-post rant it'll get closed. IE, trolling for the sake of exposing something isn't going to be tolerated but if you have something to say that is fruitful go ahead. I'd start by posting a response to the VERY simple questions I asked.

Crap I was wrong.

Pretty simple here guys, I should have figured it out earlier though. If you have an interest in discussing the enclosure fine, if not then I'll step up and just not respond. I made one very simple point and that was there are better ways to meet Malibu's goals. From that point on you all emotionally went nuts and just want to attack everything I type for any reason, but never address the point at hand. I am sorry I fell into that trap and responded which of course fueled this further. At this point I am done fueling the fire, but still more than glad to discuss the enclosure. If you want to keep skirting it you can do it without expecting a response from me.

[Alan Palmer 3]

Actually I'll leave it open and give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually post something useful for discussion. If this goes into an emotional multi-post rant it'll get closed. IE, trolling for the sake of exposing something isn't going to be tolerated but if you have something to say that is fruitful go ahead. I'd start by posting a response to the VERY simple questions I asked.

Crap I was wrong.

Pretty simple here guys, I should have figured it out earlier though. If you have an interest in discussing the enclosure fine, if not then I'll step up and just not respond. I made one very simple point and that was there are better ways to meet Malibu's goals. From that point on you all emotionally went nuts and just want to attack everything I type for any reason, but never address the point at hand. I am sorry I fell into that trap and responded which of course fueled this further. At this point I am done fueling the fire, but still more than glad to discuss the enclosure. If you want to keep skirting it you can do it without expecting a response from me.

aka you give up because the only facts relevant to this discussion prove you wrong. touche good sir. didnt see that coming. i'll mark the win up and see you again later.

[CrazyKenKid 64]

Actually I'll leave it open and give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually post something useful for discussion. If this goes into an emotional multi-post rant it'll get closed. IE, trolling for the sake of exposing something isn't going to be tolerated but if you have something to say that is fruitful go ahead. I'd start by posting a response to the VERY simple questions I asked.

Crap I was wrong.

Pretty simple here guys, I should have figured it out earlier though. If you have an interest in discussing the enclosure fine, if not then I'll step up and just not respond. I made one very simple point and that was there are better ways to meet Malibu's goals. From that point on you all emotionally went nuts and just want to attack everything I type for any reason, but never address the point at hand. I am sorry I fell into that trap and responded which of course fueled this further. At this point I am done fueling the fire, but still more than glad to discuss the enclosure. If you want to keep skirting it you can do it without expecting a response from me.

aka you give up because the only facts relevant to this discussion prove you wrong. touche good sir. didnt see that coming. i'll mark the win up and see you again later.

?

[Impious 1,476]

Well, I had a long reply started and then my laptop shut down because of the piece of shit replacement power adapter my wife bought

I'm tired and need to go to bed. So, just a couple quick comments;

first things first, on the topic of sealed boxes, physics state that a sealed box will have the best performance, as the back waves will not interfer with the forward waves at all. excursion leading to air agitation is what creates sound. in a perfect world, a sealed box would in fact be the loudest. i can find the article written by a physicist with years of research, or you can form your interpretation based of my crude description. either way, you were somewhat incorrect. physics does in fact state sealed boxes would model best.

I don't know what article you read, but the simple explanation is that you misinterpreted the information and/or didn't understand it. My prior comment on sealed enclosures is indisputably accurate. Much of your statements are easily demonstrated as incorrect. It's easy to demonstrate that a ported enclosure can have a higher peak output than sealed in "a perfect world", there are dozens of situations and circumstances where a ported enclosure is a better suited option than sealed, and there are multiple advantages to ported enclosures over sealed enclosures. On the flip side, there are also examples where a sealed enclosure is a better suited option and multiple advantages to sealed enclosures. Neither is "the best" in all possible regards and all possible situations and circumstances. To state sealed is simply "the best" is nothing but an ill informed statement. It simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the applicable theories.

Which is part of the reason I responded to the sealed enclosure comment to begin with. As I stated in the last thread, it seems as though most of the "anti-theory" crowd simply doesn't fundamentally understand the theory to begin with, which is one of the main sources of conflict. Your statements simply further demonstrate that point.

to be honest, a reputation is something to bring to the table. if you have proven that your method works, then you have something entirely credible. its like a pitcher that throws a backwards curveball. its against the norm, but if he throws a couple of perfect games, does he not have something to bring to the table since its not the norm?

Google "Argument from Authority" and why it's logically flawed.

[Alan Palmer 3]

and just to explain what a load of garbage your post was m5, what you have attempted to explain this whole time was proven wrong. you might think the math and science you've done was what happened, but somewhere along the line, your math, and what actually happened ended up being completely different.

you were asked a simple question. tell us why you are an authority. aka, what gives you the right to tell us what can and can not happen. i can see you have 46 thousand posts on this forum. that means absolutely nothing as far as car audio knowledge goes. you brought a graph, and a rudimentary knowledge of physics to the table. nothing thus far has been credited towards you in the form of experience with boxes, spl, designs, cars, etc. all you have to your name is 25 thousands posts in off topic, and a fancy graph telling me something that isnt true.

when you can come up with a better option for maliboom, then we can continue this discussion. until then, your word means nothing, because there is nothing substantial behind it. i will continue to believe those whom have proven themselves over you, until you prove yourself to be better than them, which... thus far, you have not.

[Alan Palmer 3]

Well, I had a long reply started and then my laptop shut down because of the piece of shit replacement power adapter my wife bought

I'm tired and need to go to bed. So, just a couple quick comments;

first things first, on the topic of sealed boxes, physics state that a sealed box will have the best performance, as the back waves will not interfer with the forward waves at all. excursion leading to air agitation is what creates sound. in a perfect world, a sealed box would in fact be the loudest. i can find the article written by a physicist with years of research, or you can form your interpretation based of my crude description. either way, you were somewhat incorrect. physics does in fact state sealed boxes would model best.

I don't know what article you read, but the simple explanation is that you misinterpreted the information and/or didn't understand it. My prior comment on sealed enclosures is indisputably accurate. Much of your statements are easily demonstrated as incorrect. It's easy to demonstrate that a ported enclosure can have a higher peak output than sealed in "a perfect world", there are dozens of situations and circumstances where a ported enclosure is a better suited option than sealed, and there are multiple advantages to ported enclosures over sealed enclosures. On the flip side, there are also examples where a sealed enclosure is a better suited option and multiple advantages to sealed enclosures. Neither is "the best" in all possible regards and all possible situations and circumstances. To state sealed is simply "the best" is nothing but an ill informed statement. It simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the applicable theories.

Which is part of the reason I responded to the sealed enclosure comment to begin with. As I stated in the last thread, it seems as though most of the "anti-theory" crowd simply doesn't fundamentally understand the theory to begin with, which is one of the main sources of conflict. Your statements simply further demonstrate that point.

to be honest, a reputation is something to bring to the table. if you have proven that your method works, then you have something entirely credible. its like a pitcher that throws a backwards curveball. its against the norm, but if he throws a couple of perfect games, does he not have something to bring to the table since its not the norm?

Google "Argument from Authority" and why it's logically flawed.

i refer you to this post again,

heres the article m5.

If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure.

Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try.

So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion.

link- http://caraudiomag.c...x-basics-part-2

and i will read up on the argument from authority now

[Ryan6789 0]

Actually I'll leave it open and give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually post something useful for discussion. If this goes into an emotional multi-post rant it'll get closed. IE, trolling for the sake of exposing something isn't going to be tolerated but if you have something to say that is fruitful go ahead. I'd start by posting a response to the VERY simple questions I asked.

Crap I was wrong.

Pretty simple here guys, I should have figured it out earlier though. If you have an interest in discussing the enclosure fine, if not then I'll step up and just not respond. I made one very simple point and that was there are better ways to meet Malibu's goals. From that point on you all emotionally went nuts and just want to attack everything I type for any reason, but never address the point at hand. I am sorry I fell into that trap and responded which of course fueled this further. At this point I am done fueling the fire, but still more than glad to discuss the enclosure. If you want to keep skirting it you can do it without expecting a response from me.

Why? why can't we get an intelligent response from you at all? You make all of these arrogant statements, acting like you know something that Robin/Dylan don't. I have yet to see ANY response from you on what is exactly wrong with the enclosure specified. You say the math/physics used in the design are flawed, but I have yet yo see YOUR solution to the problem. You have not made ONE single post with a solution, reasoning, or even so much as a tip to what they "should" have done to make a "non-one not wonder" or so you call this design.

Casey asks you to show why you're so "credible" in this situation and you get all butthurt and change the subject?

I'm not saying that you are WRONG but lets hear what they did wrong, what they could have done differently, why they should have done it differently.

Not one of the posts I have read from you contain one bit of useful information, other than "You did it wrong, Id do it different and it would be way better........but im not going to tell you what, why, how nanny nanny booboo"

[Impious 1,476]

heres the article m5.

If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure.

Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try.

So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion.

link- http://caraudiomag.c...x-basics-part-2

I sincerely hope that wasn't the article you were referring to that "proves" sealed enclosures are "the best".

Really though, it's 12:30 and I have to go to bed or I would get more depth.

[Ryan6789 0]

heres the article m5.

If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure.

Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try.

So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion.

link- http://caraudiomag.c...x-basics-part-2

I sincerely hope that wasn't the article you were referring to that "proves" sealed enclosures are "the best".

Really though, it's 12:30 and I have to go to bed or I would get more depth.

No one has said sealed enclosures are "the best"

Alan stated that by theory they are the best, and according to the laws of physics they would be best suited for an SPL application.

[Alan Palmer 3]

heres the article m5.

If you know something about physics, you may think you have it figured out. You would know that rapidly compressing and rarifying the air can change the pressure within an airtight environment, in this case the cab of the vehicle. And if you were so inclined, you would likely apply this knowledge in SPL competitions by searching for the "golden subwoofer" with high power handling potential and the longest excursion (so that as much air as possible could be moved). Once you found the "golden subwoofer" you would measure the vehicle to see just how many of these puppies you could stuff into the interior. And, since you want to compress and rarify the air, it would make sense to have a sealed chamber, where the front and rear wave of the speaker could not interact. All the while you would want to minimize the volume of the chamber (cab of the vehicle) so there would be less air to move. In the end, you wind up with a sealed enclosure.

Stepping into the SPL lanes will cause most physicists to become confused. Immediately, they'll ask, "Where are all of the sealed enclosures?" You see, the majority of warped and extreme competitors taking top honors in SPL competitions today use ported enclosures, not sealed. Why? I think it is safe to say that many of these competitors don't actually know themselves, they just learn from trial and error. Cut and try.

So where does the answer to high SPL lie? The physicist is actually correct in theory to recommend a sealed enclosure. However, there is one small problem: subwoofers. Current subwoofer designs cannot move enough air due to excursion limitations. On the other hand, ported enclosures are slightly less dependent on excursion.

link- http://caraudiomag.c...x-basics-part-2

I sincerely hope that wasn't the article you were referring to that "proves" sealed enclosures are "the best".

Really though, it's 12:30 and I have to go to bed or I would get more depth.

nothing "proves" anything. however, logically, that would be correct.

i have to be up in a couple of hours myself. nbd though, just putting in 70-80 hours weeks here.

im pretty much done with this though to be honest.. nothing productive is coming out of it. m5 is obviously going to tuck tail and run from any questions with merit, and nothing else is really staying on topic.. so eh. robin and dylan hit the nail on the head with this one, as they have with pretty much every other design/build they've done, and i believe they will continue to do so. math or no math, they do it right, and in the end, thats what matters.